Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) 2 September 2026

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

2 September 2026 ( * )

( EU trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for EU figurative mark HealthLabs PHARM – Relative ground for refusal – Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 – Right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark – Earlier national company name Health Labs Care Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa – Likelihood of confusion )

In Case T‑681/25,

Health Labs Care S.A., established in Warsaw (Poland), represented by M. Stępkowski and M. Oleksyn, lawyers,

applicant,

v

European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), represented by E. Lobotková and by R. Raponi, acting as Agents,

defendant,

the other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, interveners before the General Court, being

Onebrand Trading Ltd S.K.A., established in Kraków (Poland),

Health Labs Express Ltd, established in London (United Kingdom),

Onebrand Trading LTD, established in Nicosia (Cyprus),

represented by T. Grucelski and M. Czubak, lawyers,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber),

composed of N. Półtorak, President, G. Steinfatt and D. Petrlík (Rapporteur), Judges,

Registrar: J. Čuboň, Administrator,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 11 June 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1 By its action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant, Health Labs Care S.A., seeks the annulment and alteration of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2025 (Case R 2389/2024-2) (‘the contested decision’).

Background to the dispute

2 On 19 April 2021, the interveners, Onebrand Trading Ltd S.K.A., Health Labs Express Ltd and Onebrand Trading LTD, filed an application for registration of an EU trade mark with EUIPO in respect of the following figurative sign:

3 The mark applied for covered goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 44 of the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks of 15 June 1957, as revised and amended, corresponding, for each of those classes, to the following description:

– Class 3: ‘Toiletries; body cleaning and beauty care preparations; hair preparations and treatments; cosmetics’;

– Class 5: ‘Nutritional supplements; pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; food supplements; pharmaceutical preparations and substances; vitamin supplements; dietary supplements and dietetic preparations’;

– Class 35: ‘Retail services in relation to food supplements; television shopping based retail services in relation to cosmetics; retail services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; catalogue retail services in relation to nutritional supplements; retail services in relation to toiletries; online retail services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; online retail services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; catalogue retail services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; mail order retail services in relation to vitamin supplements; television shopping based retail services in relation to toiletries; mail order retail services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; mail order retail services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; television shopping based retail services in relation to vitamin supplements; television shopping based retail services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; retail services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; wholesale services in relation to vitamin supplements; wholesale services in relation to nutritional supplements; mail order retail services in relation to nutritional supplements; retail services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; online retail services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; online retail services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; mail order retail services in relation to toiletries; online retail services in relation to food supplements; mail order retail services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; television shopping based retail services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; wholesale services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; catalogue retail services in relation to cosmetics; television shopping based retail services in relation to nutritional supplements; retail services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; retail services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; wholesale services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; catalogue retail services in relation to vitamin supplements; wholesale services in relation to cosmetics; wholesale services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; catalogue retail services in relation to body cleaning and beauty care preparations; online retail services in relation to nutritional supplements; catalogue retail services in relation to pharmaceuticals and natural remedies; mail order retail services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; television shopping based retail services in relation to food supplements; catalogue retail services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; retail services in relation to vitamin supplements; catalogue retail services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; mail order retail services in relation to cosmetics; mail order retail services in relation to food supplements; retail services in relation to cosmetics; television shopping based retail services in relation to hair preparations and treatments; retail services in relation to nutritional supplements; television shopping based retail services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; catalogue retail services in relation to food supplements; mail order retail services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; wholesale services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; online retail services in relation to vitamin supplements; wholesale services in relation to toiletries; wholesale services in relation to dietary supplements and dietetic preparations; wholesale services in relation to food supplements; catalogue retail services in relation to toiletries; television shopping based retail services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; online retail services in relation to toiletries; online retail services in relation to pharmaceutical preparations and substances; online retail services in relation to cosmetics’;

– Class 44: ‘Dietician service; nutrition and dietetic consultancy; dietary and nutritional advice; providing information relating to dietary and nutritional guidance; human healthcare services; providing information relating to dietary and nutritional supplements’.

4 On 6 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods and services referred to in paragraph 3 above.

5 The opposition was based on a number of earlier rights, including the Polish company name Health Labs Care Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa (‘the earlier sign’). According to the applicant, the earlier sign had been used in the course of trade in Poland for the following goods and services: ‘supplements, including food supplements, cosmetic supplements, dietary supplements [and] nutritional supplements’; ‘retail services related to supplements; dietary and nutritional advice; advice related to supplements’; ‘production and sale [of] all kind of supplements’.

6 The ground relied on in support of the opposition was that set out in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ 2017 L 154, p. 1).

7 On 15 October 2024, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services. The Opposition Division found that the earlier signs had been used in the course of trade of more than local significance in Poland for the following goods: ‘supplements, including food supplements, cosmetic supplements, dietary supplements [and] nutritional supplements’. Furthermore, it held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier sign.

8 On 11 December 2024, the interveners filed a notice of appeal with EUIPO against the Opposition Division’s decision.

9 By the contested decision, the Board of Appeal upheld the appeal. First, it confirmed the Opposition Division’s finding that, in the light of the applicable national law governing the earlier sign, the criteria for establishing a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 could be applied, mutatis mutandis , to the ground of opposition set out in Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001. Second, it found that, contrary to what had been found by the Opposition Division, there was no likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier sign. Consequently, the Board of Appeal annulled the Opposition Division’s decision and remitted the case to it for examination of the opposition based on the other earlier rights relied on in support of that opposition.

Forms of order sought

10 The applicant claims that the Court should:

– annul the contested decision;

– in the alternative, alter the contested decision and dismiss the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision;

– order EUIPO and the interveners to pay the costs.

11 EUIPO contends that the Court should:

– dismiss the action in its entirety;

– order the applicant to pay the costs incurred by EUIPO in the event that a hearing is convened.

12 The interveners contend that the Court should:

– dismiss the action as unfounded;

– order the applicant to pay the costs, including the costs of legal representation.

Law

13 The applicant relies on three pleas in law. The first plea alleges infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 in that the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that there was no likelihood of confusion. The second plea alleges infringement of Article 94(1) and Article 95(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), in that the Board of Appeal based the contested decision on facts and evidence which were not submitted by the parties and failed to communicate those facts and that evidence to the parties before issuing the contested decision. The third plea alleges infringement of Article 94(1) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 41(2)(c) of the Charter, in that the Board of Appeal acted in breach of its obligation to state reasons and distorted the applicant’s arguments relating to the distinctive character of the earlier sign.

14 By its first plea, the applicant argues, in essence, that the Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 by making an erroneous assessment, first, of the comparison of the signs at issue, second, of the distinctive character of the earlier sign, and, third, of the likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue. In the first part of its second plea, the applicant specifically claims that the Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public would understand the word element ‘health’, which is common to the signs at issue, and that that element was therefore weakly distinctive. According to the applicant, the relevant public consists of two non-negligible groups of consumers, namely consumers who do not understand the word element ‘health’, for whom that element is meaningless and therefore distinctive, and those who do understand that word element.

15 EUIPO contends that the Board of Appeal’s assessment was correct and that the arguments put forward by the applicant are unfounded. It submits, in particular, that the common elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ are inherently weakly distinctive and that their reduced weight in the comparison of the signs at issue is consistent with established case-law.

16 The Court considers it appropriate to examine the first plea together with the argument put forward in relation to the second plea indicated in paragraph 14 above.

17 Pursuant to Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, the proprietor of a sign, other than a registered trade mark, may oppose the registration of an EU trade mark if that sign satisfies four cumulative conditions: the sign must be used in the course of trade; it must be of more than mere local significance; the right to that sign must have been acquired in accordance with EU law or the law of the Member State in which the sign was used prior to the date of application for registration of the EU trade mark; lastly, the sign must confer on its proprietor the right to prohibit the use of a subsequent trade mark. Those conditions are cumulative; thus, where a sign does not satisfy one of those conditions, the opposition based on the existence of a non-registered trade mark or of other signs used in the course of trade within the meaning of Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 cannot succeed (see judgment of 2 December 2020, Monster Energy v EUIPO – Nanjing aisiyou Clothing (Representation of a scratch) , T‑35/20, not published, EU:T:2020:579, paragraph 67 and the case-law cited).

18 In the present case, the Board of Appeal essentially confirmed the Opposition Division’s finding that, in the light of the applicable national law governing the earlier sign, the criteria for establishing a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1) of Regulation 2017/1001 could be applied, mutatis mutandis , to determine whether the earlier sign could justify prohibiting the use of the mark applied for under Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001. The parties do not dispute that finding, except for EUIPO’s argument that national law governing the earlier sign contains no presumption that that sign possesses inherent distinctiveness. However, that argument has no bearing on the assessment of a likelihood of confusion in the present case for the reasons set out in paragraph 112 below.

19 It follows that the criteria for establishing a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 must be applied in the present case.

20 Thus, in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, read in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) thereof, upon opposition by the proprietor of the earlier sign, the trade mark applied for must not be registered if, because of its identity with, or similarity to, the earlier sign and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the signs, there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier sign is protected.

21 According to settled case-law, the risk that the public may believe that the goods or services in question come from the same undertaking or from economically linked undertakings constitutes a likelihood of confusion. According to the same case-law, the likelihood of confusion must be assessed globally, according to the relevant public’s perception of the signs and goods or services in question and taking into account all factors relevant to the circumstances of the case, in particular the interdependence between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered (see judgment of 22 September 2021, Sociedade da Água de Monchique v EUIPO – Ventura Vendrell (chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH) , T‑195/20, EU:T:2021:601, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).

22 For the purposes of applying Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001, a likelihood of confusion presupposes both that the signs at issue are identical or similar and that the goods or services which they cover are identical or similar. Those conditions are cumulative (see judgment of 22 September 2021, chic ÁGUA ALCALINA 9,5 PH , T‑195/20, EU:T:2021:601, paragraph 24 and the case-law cited).

23 In the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, account should be taken of the average consumer of the category of goods concerned, who is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant and circumspect. It should also be borne in mind that the average consumer’s level of attention is likely to vary according to the category of goods or services in question (see judgment of 13 February 2007, Mundipharma v OHIM – Altana Pharma (RESPICUR) , T‑256/04, EU:T:2007:46, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).

24 Where the goods or services covered by the two signs at issue are intended for the same relevant public, which comprises both the general public and professionals, the public with the lowest level of attention must be taken into consideration (see judgment of 20 May 2014, Argo Group International Holdings v OHIM – Arisa Assurances (ARIS) , T‑247/12, EU:T:2014:258, paragraphs 28 and 29 and the case-law cited).

25 Lastly, a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion for a non-negligible part of the relevant public is sufficient to uphold an opposition brought against an application for registration of a mark (see judgment of 25 February 2026, PFP Monaco v EUIPO – Stanton (BRAMANI) , T‑298/25, not published, EU:T:2026:145, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).

26 The present action must be examined in the light of those principles.

27 In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal found that, since the earlier sign was assumed to be a valid earlier right protected by the Polish law concerning company names, the relevant territory for the purposes of assessing the likelihood of confusion was Poland. According to the Board of Appeal, the relevant public included both the general public and professionals in the field of beauty care and cosmetics, as well as in the pharmaceutical and medical fields. The Board of Appeal also held, in essence, that the level of attention of such professionals was high, while that of the general public was average for human hygiene and beauty care services in Class 44 and above average for the remaining goods and services in the pharmaceutical and medical fields. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal found that the goods and services covered by the signs at issue were identical and similar to varying degrees. There is no need to call into question those assessments by the Board of Appeal, which, moreover, have not been disputed by the parties.

The comparison of the signs at issue

28 The global assessment of the likelihood of confusion must, so far as concerns the visual, phonetic or conceptual similarity of the signs at issue, be based on the overall impression given by the signs, bearing in mind, in particular, their distinctive and dominant elements. The perception of the signs by the average consumer of the goods or services in question plays a decisive role in the global assessment of that likelihood of confusion (see judgment of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker , C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

29 In that regard, although the average consumer normally perceives a mark as a whole and does not engage in an analysis of its various details, the fact remains that, while perceiving a verbal sign, that consumer will identify the word elements which, for him or her, suggest a concrete meaning or resemble words known to him or her (see judgment of 29 October 2015, Giuntoli v OHIM – Société des produits Nestlé (CREMERIA TOSCANA) , T‑256/14, not published, EU:T:2015:814, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

30 Assessment of the similarity between two signs means more than taking just one component of a composite trade mark and comparing it with another mark. On the contrary, the comparison must be made by examining each of the signs in question as a whole, which does not mean that the overall impression conveyed to the relevant public by a composite trade mark may not, in certain circumstances, be dominated by one or more of its components (see judgment of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker , C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited). It is only if all the other components of the mark are negligible that the assessment of the similarity can be carried out solely on the basis of the dominant element (judgment of 12 June 2007, OHIM v Shaker , C‑334/05 P, EU:C:2007:333, paragraph 42). That could be the case, in particular, where that component is capable on its own of dominating the image of that mark which members of the relevant public retain, with the result that all the other components are negligible in the overall impression created by that mark (see judgment of 9 December 2020, Ace of spades v EUIPO – Krupp and Borrmann (JC JEAN CALL Champagne PRESTIGE) , T‑622/19, not published, EU:T:2020:594, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

The distinctive and dominant elements of the signs at issue

31 In order to determine the distinctive character of an element making up a mark, an assessment must be made of the greater or lesser capacity of that element to identify the goods or services for which the mark was registered as coming from a particular undertaking, and thus to distinguish those goods or services from those of other undertakings. In making that assessment, account should be taken, in particular, of the inherent characteristics of the element in question in the light of whether it is at all descriptive of the goods or services for which the mark has been registered (see judgment of 14 May 2025, Taxolutions v EUIPO – Haufe-Lexware (TAXMARC) , T‑1154/23, not published, EU:T:2025:487, paragraph 48 and the case-law cited).

32 In the present case, the earlier sign is made up of the word elements ‘health’, ‘labs’ and ‘care’, as well as the group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’, indicating the legal form of the company.

33 The sign applied for is a figurative mark made up of the word elements ‘health’, ‘labs’ and ‘pharm’ – written in commonly used fonts – as well as a figurative element. In that respect, first, the word element ‘labs’ is represented in bold letters. Second, the word element ‘pharm’ is considerably smaller than the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ and is positioned beneath them. Third, the figurative element depicts a cross within a fanciful device in the shape of a heart. That element is positioned to the left of the word elements and is slightly taller than the word elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’.

34 First, the Board of Appeal held that the element ‘labs’ – which is common to the signs at issue – would be understood by the relevant public as the plural of a diminutive form of the Polish word for ‘laboratory’, namely ‘ laboratorium ’. Taking into account the importance of the concept of ‘lab-developed’ in the marketing of supplements, the Board of Appeal found that the element ‘labs’ was weakly distinctive for the goods and services at issue.

35 Second, as regards the earlier sign, the Board of Appeal held that the element ‘care’ was understood by the relevant public as an allusion to the fact that the relevant goods and services at issue help users to care for their health. It also stated that the group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’ indicated the legal form of the company and was non-distinctive.

36 Third, with regard to the sign applied for, the Board of Appeal found that the element ‘pharm’ was understood by the relevant public as a reference to the English terms ‘pharmacy’ and ‘pharmaceutical’ or to their Polish equivalents ‘ farmacja ’ and ‘ farmaceutyczny ’. Therefore, that element was highly allusive to the goods and services at issue and to the fact that those goods and services were provided by pharmaceutical companies or benefited from the results of pharmaceutical research.

37 Fourth, the Board of Appeal found that the figurative element of the sign applied for was perceived by the relevant public as the depiction of a cross within a fanciful device in the shape of a heart. In that respect, the Board of Appeal noted that, although the concept of a cross is commonly used by medical institutions and in the pharmaceutical industry, that element is not entirely devoid of distinctiveness. Therefore, the figurative element of the sign applied for was held to be distinctive to a low degree.

38 The parties do not dispute the Board of Appeal’s assessments set out in paragraphs 34 to 37 above.

39 However, the applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s finding that the element ‘health’, which is common to the signs at issue, is devoid of distinctive character.

– The distinctive character of the element ‘health’

40 The Board of Appeal held that the element ‘health’, which is common to the signs at issue, was weakly distinctive. First, the word ‘health’ is part of basic English vocabulary, since it is listed as an A1-level word among the 3 000 most important words to learn in English according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary . According to the Board of Appeal, the General Court has ruled that English words considered A1 and A2 level can be regarded as basic English. Second, the Board of Appeal found that, having regard to the fairly high degree of English comprehension of the Polish-speaking general public, the entire relevant public would understand the meaning of the English word ‘health’. Accordingly, the Board of Appeal held that the combination ‘Health Labs’ would be perceived as referring to a ‘health laboratory’.

41 The applicant disputes those assessments and submits that the word element ‘health’ is distinctive for a non-negligible part of the relevant public, which does not understand its meaning in English.

42 EUIPO and the interveners dispute the applicant’s arguments. EUIPO submits, first, that the classification of the word ‘health’ as forming part of basic English vocabulary, as corroborated by widely accessible online dictionaries and linguistic classification tools, constitutes a well-known fact. Second, even assuming that part of the relevant public does not understand the word ‘health’ in isolation, the combination of that term with the word ‘labs’ in the signs at issue is perceived as referring to a laboratory of a particular type.

43 According to settled case-law, the understanding by a non-English-speaking public of an English word cannot, in general, be assumed. That understanding may, however, be assumed, provided, first, that sufficient knowledge of English on the part of the relevant public is a well-known fact or, second, that the word at issue is part of basic English vocabulary widely known to the non-English-speaking public or, third, that the word has an equivalent in the native language of the relevant public, enabling that public to establish a link between that word and its translation into the language concerned (see judgment of 11 February 2026, Nutris We care about you v EUIPO – Medis (ProbioDefend) , T‑209/25, not published, EU:T:2026:114, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).

44 As regards the first alternative condition referred to in the preceding paragraph, the fact that the Polish public understands the meaning of particular English words, such as ‘health’, cannot be considered a well-known fact as such (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 April 2020, Kerry Luxembourg v EUIPO – Döhler (TasteSense By Kerry) , T‑108/19, not published, EU:T:2020:161, paragraph 63). While it is true that a large proportion of that public may have such an understanding, it cannot be presumed that the entire general public in Poland, except for a negligible part of it, has that understanding.

45 Concerning the second alternative condition referred to in paragraph 43 above, the English term ‘health’ cannot be considered to form part of basic English vocabulary which may be assumed to be widely known to consumers throughout the European Union (judgment of 17 April 2024, Unilab v EUIPO – Cofares (Healthily) , T‑288/23, not published, EU:T:2024:241, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited). Therefore, this also applies to the general public in Poland.

46 As regards the third alternative condition referred to in paragraph 43 above, the Polish equivalent of the word ‘health’ is ‘ zdrowie ’, which bears no phonetic or visual resemblance to the English word. It follows that a non-negligible part of the relevant Polish-speaking public will not establish a link between that term and its equivalent in Polish (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 April 2024, Healthily , T‑288/23, not published, EU:T:2024:241, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).

47 In those circumstances, it must be held that the word ‘health’ has no meaning for a non-negligible part of the general public in Poland.

48 Consequently, and since the relevant public in the present case includes not only professionals, but also the general public in Poland (see paragraph 27 above), the Board of Appeal was not entitled to find, as it did in paragraph 33 of the contested decision, that the entire relevant public would understand the word ‘health’ and that, given the goods and services at issue, such a word lacked distinctiveness from the perspective of said public.

49 That conclusion is not called into question by the argument made by the Board of Appeal – and supported by EUIPO – that the word ‘health’ is listed as an A1-level word among the 3 000 most important words to learn in English according to the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary and that English words considered A1 and A2 level can be regarded as basic English. First, contrary to what the Board of Appeal seemed to consider, the Court has not established a general principle that when an English word is listed as an A1- or A2-level word according to linguistic classification tools, that word forms part of basic English vocabulary and that it can be assumed that such a word will be understood by the entire general public of the European Union. Second, the judgments cited by the Board of Appeal concerned specific situations where an English word had a similar-sounding equivalent in the native language of a Member State (see, to that effect, judgments of 7 May 2025, Carl Freudenberg v EUIPO – Cadeinor – Mobiliário de escritório integrado (SOUNDLESS) , T‑398/24, not published, EU:T:2025:443, paragraphs 29 to 32, and of 4 June 2025, Benschop v EUIPO – Seven Bell Group (ALWAYS RUN 4PRESIDENT) , T‑76/24, not published, EU:T:2025:563, paragraphs 39 to 43).

50 Nor is the conclusion set out in paragraph 48 above called into question by the Board of Appeal’s finding that the English word ‘health’ is used in Poland in relation to human health, including in Polish-language health-related applications such as ‘Samsung Health’. In that respect, first, the possibility that a non-negligible part of the general public in Poland is not familiar with such applications cannot be ruled out. Second, the Board of Appeal itself recognised that the fact that the English word ‘health’ was used in Poland in relation to human health was not decisive for the outcome of the contested decision.

51 Lastly, the conclusion set out in paragraph 48 above is not invalidated by EUIPO’s argument that the combination of words ‘health labs’ will be perceived as referring to a laboratory of a particular type by the part of the relevant public which does not understand English.

52 First, the Court has already held, as regards the word element ‘corelabs’, that, since the element ‘core’ had no specific meaning for the non-English-speaking consumer, unlike the element ‘labs’ which was understood as a diminutive form of the word ‘laboratories’, the former had an average degree of distinctiveness, whereas the latter was weakly distinctive (judgment of 28 September 2022, G-Core Innovations v EUIPO – Coretransform (G CORELABS) , T‑454/21, not published, EU:T:2022:591, paragraph 39). The same conclusion must be reached in the present case with regard to the combination of words ‘health labs’.

53 Second, EUIPO cannot rely on the judgment of 12 May 2021, Metamorfoza v EUIPO – Tiesios kreivės (MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS) , (T‑70/20, not published, EU:T:2021:253) – concerning the combination of words ‘museum of illusions’ – to maintain that the combination of words ‘health labs’ will be perceived as referring to a laboratory of a particular type. In that respect, it suffices to note that the case that gave rise to that judgment differs from the present case – and from the case that gave rise to the judgment cited in the preceding paragraph – in that the two word elements at issue – namely ‘museum’ and ‘illusions’ – were connected by the word ‘of’, which is a basic English word understood by the entire relevant public (judgment of 12 May 2021, MUSEUM OF ILLUSIONS , T‑70/20, not published, EU:T:2021:253, paragraphs 48 and 50).

54 In those circumstances, it must be concluded that the word element ‘health’ has an average degree of distinctiveness for a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

– The dominant character of the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’

55 In the contested decision, the Board of Appeal did not rule on the dominant elements of the sign applied for. It is nevertheless apparent from its assessment of the similarity of the signs at issue that it did not regard any one of the elements of the sign applied for as being capable on its own of dominating the image that the relevant public retains of that sign.

56 The applicant submits that, even if the element ‘health labs’ were assumed to have a weak distinctive character, that element would have a dominant or co-dominant character in the sign applied for.

57 EUIPO and the interveners dispute the applicant’s argument. EUIPO submits, in essence, that the sign applied for is composed exclusively of weakly distinctive elements and contains no dominant element.

58 With regard to the assessment of the dominant character of one or more given components of a complex trade mark, account must be taken, in particular, of the intrinsic qualities of each of those components by comparing them with those of other components. In addition and accessorily, account may be taken of the relative position of the various components within the arrangement of the complex mark (see judgment of 14 May 2025, TAXMARC , T‑1154/23, not published, EU:T:2025:487, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

59 In the present case, the word elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ in the sign applied for will particularly attract the consumer’s attention in view of their central positioning and relative size compared with the other elements contained in that sign (see, by analogy, judgment of 4 March 2020, EUIPO v Equivalenza Manufactory , C‑328/18 P, EU:C:2020:156, paragraph 89). First, the word element ‘pharm’ is considerably smaller than the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’, and is positioned beneath them. Second, the figurative element is not visually eye-catching on account of its size, being only slightly taller than the word elements which it accompanies (see, by analogy, judgment of 22 January 2025, Rain Carbon Germany v EUIPO – Novaresine (NOVARESINE INNOVATION GOES GREEN) , T‑1188/23, not published, EU:T:2025:49, paragraph 51).

60 Therefore, contrary to what the Board of Appeal found, the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ are capable of drawing the attention of a non-negligible part of the relevant public, which will therefore consider that those elements dominate the overall impression created by the sign applied for.

61 It follows from the foregoing that the Board of Appeal’s examination of the distinctive and dominant elements of the signs at issue is vitiated by errors of assessment as regards a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

Visual similarity

62 The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 45 of the contested decision, that the signs at issue were visually similar to a low degree. It held, in essence, that the words ‘health’ and ‘labs’ common to both signs had a limited impact on the overall visual impression of the signs at issue due to their weakly distinctive character. Moreover, the word elements ‘care’ and ‘pharm’ and the figurative element of the sign applied for contributed to distinguishing the signs at issue.

63 The applicant disputes those findings, arguing that the signs are partially identical as regards the element ‘health labs’ and that the other elements of the sign applied for are not capable of offsetting the strong visual similarity between the signs at issue. Furthermore, the applicant points out that the element ‘health labs’ is situated at the beginning of the signs at issue. Accordingly, those signs are visually similar to an average or even high degree.

64 EUIPO and the interveners dispute the applicant’s arguments.

65 EUIPO maintains, in essence, that the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ are weakly distinctive and that those signs are not capable of monopolising the attention of the relevant public.

66 The interveners submit that, having regard to the facts as established by the Board of Appeal, the element ‘health labs’ has a limited impact on the overall visual impression of the signs at issue.

67 According to the case-law, the descriptive, non-distinctive or weakly distinctive elements of a complex trade mark generally have less weight in the analysis of the similarity between the signs concerned than the elements of greater distinctiveness, which are also more able to dominate the overall impression created by the mark (see judgment of 12 June 2019, Hansson , C‑705/17, EU:C:2019:481, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

68 In the present case, the signs at issue coincide as to the word elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’.

69 In that regard, as noted in paragraph 54 above, there is a non-negligible part of the relevant public for which the word element ‘health’, which is common to the signs at issue, has an average degree of distinctiveness. Moreover, as is clear from paragraph 60 above, the elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ dominate the overall impression created by the sign applied for.

70 It is true that the signs at issue differ because of, first, the presence of the word element ‘care’ and the group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’ in the earlier sign, and, second, the presence of the word element ‘pharm’ and the figurative element in the sign applied for.

71 However, as is clear from paragraphs 34 to 38 above, the applicant does not dispute the Board of Appeal’s findings that such word elements are descriptive or weakly distinctive. Moreover, as regards the sign applied for, the element ‘pharm’ and the figurative element occupy a secondary position in relation to the dominant elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ (see paragraph 60 above). It is thus apparent that those differences are not such as to obscure the visual similarity resulting from the coincidence of the word elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’ in the signs at issue.

72 In light of all of the foregoing, it must be held that, for a non-negligible part of the relevant public, the signs at issue are visually similar to an average degree. Consequently, the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was a low degree of visual similarity between those signs.

Phonetic similarity

73 The Board of Appeal found that the signs at issue were phonetically similar to a low degree, owing, first, to the weak distinctive character of the words ‘health’ and ‘labs’ common to both signs, and, second, to the presence of the words ‘care’ and ‘pharm’, in respect of which those signs differ.

74 The applicant disputes those findings and submits that the signs at issue are phonetically similar to an average or even high degree. In that respect, it argues that the common element ‘health labs’ is identically pronounced and that the signs at issue have similar lengths and pronunciation rhythms. It also points out, in essence, that the relevant public is likely to pronounce the word elements of the signs at issue fully and not as an English native speaker would.

75 EUIPO and the interveners dispute those arguments and submit, in essence, that the phonetic overlap relied upon by the applicant merely concerns the weakly distinctive elements ‘health’ and ‘labs’.

76 The sign applied for contains three monosyllabic word elements, namely ‘health’, ‘labs’ and ‘pharm’. The earlier sign contains three monosyllabic word elements, namely ‘health’, ‘labs’ and ‘care’, as well as the group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’.

77 In this respect, it must be held that at least a non-negligible part of the relevant public will not pronounce the non-distinctive group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’ in the earlier sign and the weakly distinctive word element ‘pharm’, which is smaller than the other word elements in the sign applied for. Indeed, consumers tend to abbreviate signs composed of several word elements, more specifically where one of those elements is descriptive and represented in smaller characters (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2024, L’Oréal v EUIPO – Samar’t Pharma (BI blue pigment) , T‑180/23, not published, EU:T:2024:103, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited).

78 As regards the other word elements, the signs at issue coincide phonetically in two of the three syllables contained in those word elements, namely ‘health’ and ‘labs’. Moreover, as is rightly stated by the applicant, the signs at issue have similar lengths and pronunciation rhythms.

79 Lastly, as is apparent from paragraph 54 above, there is a non-negligible part of the relevant public for which the common word element ‘health’ has an average degree of distinctiveness.

80 It must therefore be held that, contrary to what the Board of Appeal found, the signs at issue are phonetically similar to a high degree for a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

Conceptual comparison

81 The Board of Appeal found, in essence, that the conceptual similarity resulting from the coincidence of the element ‘health labs’ had a limited impact on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, due to the weak distinctive character of that element. According to the Board of Appeal, that element was understood by the relevant public as alluding to the concept of ‘lab-developed’ or to lab testing in the rendering of health services.

82 The applicant submits that the signs as a whole do not have any meaning for a non-negligible part of the relevant public. Although the terms ‘labs’ and ‘pharm’ were understood by that part of the relevant public, they had a limited impact on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion due to their weak distinctive character.

83 EUIPO submits that the applicant did not challenge the Board of Appeal’s assessment that the conceptual comparison had a limited impact on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

84 As a preliminary point, it must be found that, as confirmed by the applicant at the hearing, the applicant challenged the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the conceptual comparison by submitting that, for the part of the relevant public which did not understand the meaning of the word ‘health’, the conceptual similarity was limited to the word element ‘labs’ and did not play a decisive role in the assessment.

85 According to the case-law, whereas it is true that the assessment of the similarity of signs must be based on the overall impression they produce and that the average consumer normally perceives a sign as a whole and does not proceed to examine its various details, it remains the case that the consumer, encountering a word sign, may break it down into elements having a concrete meaning or resembling familiar words, even if only one element is familiar to him or her (judgment of 28 January 2026, Montepelayo v EUIPO – TRON (TELOTRÓN) , T‑203/25, not published, EU:T:2026:50, paragraph 67).

86 Furthermore, conceptual similarities and conceptual differences arising from weakly distinctive elements attract consumers’ attention only in a limited manner (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 June 2025, Certinvest v EUIPO – Regal Ventures (Premium Quality REGAL Bakery) , T‑431/24, not published, EU:T:2025:636, paragraph 104).

87 In the present case, as regards the conceptual similarities between the signs at issue, it must be held, first, that the common element ‘health’ is descriptive of the goods and services at issue for the part of the relevant public which understands its meaning.

88 By contrast, contrary to what the Board of Appeal found, for the part of the relevant public which does not understand the meaning of the element ‘health’, that element has no bearing on the conceptual comparison (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 March 2026, Debonair v EUIPO – Loewe (AOURA) , T‑77/25, not published, EU:T:2026:193, paragraph 113).

89 Second, the parties do not challenge the Board of Appeal’s finding that the word element ‘labs’, common to the signs at issue, is weakly distinctive (see paragraphs 34 and 38 above).

90 As regards their conceptual differences, the signs at issue differ because of, first, the presence of the word element ‘care’ and the group of words ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’ in the earlier sign and, second, the presence of the word element ‘pharm’ and the figurative element in the sign applied for. However, as is clear from paragraphs 35 to 38 above, those elements are either descriptive or weakly distinctive.

91 It follows that both the conceptual similarities and the conceptual differences between the signs at issue have limited weight in the conceptual comparison.

92 In those circumstances, it must be held that, despite its error of assessment regarding the understanding of the word element ‘health’ by a non-negligible part of the relevant public, the Board of Appeal was right in finding that the conceptual similarity between the signs at issue had a limited impact on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

The distinctive character of the earlier sign

93 The Board of Appeal found, in paragraph 53 of the contested decision, that the earlier sign had low distinctiveness. According to the Board of Appeal, first, the applicant did not explicitly claim that that sign was particularly distinctive by virtue of intensive use or reputation. Second, as regards distinctiveness per se, the earlier sign was composed of the weakly distinctive word elements ‘health’, ‘labs’ and ‘care’ and of the descriptive indication ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’.

94 The applicant disputes the Board of Appeal’s assessment and submits that the earlier sign has an average or even high degree of distinctiveness. First, the earlier sign has acquired distinctive character through use. Second, the earlier sign is inherently distinctive for at least a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

95 EUIPO disputes the applicant’s argument and submits, first, that the combination of words ‘health labs’ is weakly distinctive. Second, the criteria for assessing the inherent distinctiveness of EU trade marks under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 cannot be applied to the present case, as national law contains no presumption that a registered company name must possess inherent distinctiveness comparable to that of a registered EU trade mark, nor does it impose any such distinctiveness threshold for registration or protection.

96 First of all, it must be noted that the applicant did not produce any evidence before the Court to substantiate its argument that the earlier sign had acquired distinctive character through use.

97 Next, as is clear from paragraph 54 above, the first element of the earlier sign, the term ‘health’, has average distinctive character for a non-negligible part of the relevant public. That element is therefore capable of conferring distinctive character on the earlier sign as a whole for that part of the relevant public (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 January 2025, Drinks Prod v EUIPO – Paul Hartmann (OmniSan) , T‑189/24, not published, EU:T:2025:5, paragraph 81).

98 In that regard, while the other elements of the earlier sign – namely ‘labs’, ‘care’ and ‘Spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością Spółka komandytowa’ – are weakly distinctive, that circumstance does not affect the distinctiveness of the earlier sign as a whole, due to the presence of the distinctive element ‘health’ (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 January 2025, OmniSan , T‑189/24, not published, EU:T:2025:5, paragraph 82).

99 It must therefore be held that, contrary to what the Board of Appeal found, the earlier sign has average distinctive character for a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

The likelihood of confusion

100 The Board of Appeal found that, since the inherent distinctiveness of the earlier sign was low and the signs at issue coincided in weakly distinctive elements, there was no likelihood of confusion between those signs. In that regard, a likelihood of confusion was ruled out even for the general public in Poland, which, according to the Board of Appeal, was more prone to confusion but paid a higher degree of attention to goods and services in the field of health.

101 The applicant disputes that conclusion and submits that the Board of Appeal did not correctly apply the principle of interdependence between the factors relevant to the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion. According to the applicant, taking into account the identity or similarity of the goods and services at issue, the average or high degree of visual and phonetic similarity, the limited impact of the conceptual similarity and the average or high distinctiveness of the earlier sign, the Board of Appeal should have considered that there was a likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.

102 EUIPO and the interveners dispute the applicant’s arguments. EUIPO submits that the Board of Appeal took into account all relevant factors, including the principle of interdependence between the similarity of the signs at issue and that of the goods and services covered by those signs. The interveners submit that, where the similarity between two signs relates to weakly distinctive components, the impact of such similarity on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion is itself weak.

103 According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice, the existence of a likelihood of confusion depends on numerous elements, in particular the recognition of the used or registered sign on the market, the association which can be made with that sign, and the degree of similarity between the signs at issue and between the goods or services identified. The likelihood of confusion must therefore be assessed globally, taking into account all the relevant factors of the particular case (see judgment of 12 June 2019, Hansson , C‑705/17, EU:C:2019:481, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).

104 A global assessment of the likelihood of confusion implies some interdependence between the factors taken into account and, in particular, between the similarity of the signs and that of the goods or services covered. Accordingly, a low degree of similarity between those goods or services may be offset by a high degree of similarity between the signs, and vice versa (judgments of 29 September 1998, Canon , C‑39/97, EU:C:1998:442, paragraph 17, and of 14 December 2006, Mast-Jägermeister v OHIM – Licorera Zacapaneca (VENADO with frame and others) , T‑81/03, T‑82/03 and T‑103/03, EU:T:2006:397, paragraph 74).

105 Furthermore, the more distinctive the earlier mark, the greater will be the likelihood of confusion (judgment of 11 November 1997, SABEL , C‑251/95, EU:C:1997:528, paragraph 24).

106 First of all, in the present case, in accordance with the case-law referred to in paragraph 24 above, it is necessary to assess the likelihood of confusion from the perspective of the general public in Poland.

107 Next, the goods and services at issue are partly identical and partly similar to varying degrees (see paragraph 27 above).

108 Furthermore, for a non-negligible part of the general public in Poland, there is an average degree of visual similarity and a high degree of phonetic similarity between the signs at issue, while the conceptual similarity between them has a limited impact on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion (see paragraphs 72, 80 and 92 above).

109 Moreover, for that part of the relevant public, the earlier mark has average distinctive character (see paragraph 99 above).

110 Lastly, it is true that the level of attention of the relevant public is above average for part of the goods and services at issue, namely those in the pharmaceutical and medical fields (see paragraph 27 above). However, the fact that part of the relevant public will display a high level of attention when examining the sign applied for does not mean that it will examine that sign down to the smallest detail, or that it will compare that sign in minute detail to the earlier sign. Even for a public displaying a high level of attention, it remains the case that the average consumer only rarely has the opportunity to compare the different signs directly, but must rely on his or her imperfect recollection of them (see judgment of 10 November 2021, Stada Arzneimittel v EUIPO – Pfizer (RUXYMLA) , T‑248/20, not published, EU:T:2021:772, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).

111 In the light of all of the foregoing, it must be held that a likelihood of confusion exists between the signs at issue for a non-negligible part of the relevant public.

112 That conclusion is not affected by EUIPO’s argument that the criteria for assessing the inherent distinctive character of EU trade marks under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 cannot be applied to the earlier sign since the national law governing company names contains no presumption that the earlier sign must possess inherent distinctiveness comparable to that of a registered EU trade mark, nor does it impose any such distinctiveness threshold for registration or protection. In that regard, it suffices to note that, regardless of the existence of such a presumption in the applicable national law, the average distinctive character of the earlier sign results from the fact that it contains the distinctive element ‘health’ (see paragraphs 97 to 99 above), and not from its registration as a company name.

113 Nor is the conclusion made in paragraph 111 above invalidated by EUIPO’s argument that, in essence, the applicant cannot rely on the distinctive character of the common elements of the signs at issue because, under the applicable national law governing the earlier sign, the words ‘health labs care’ contained in the earlier sign are protected precisely as that combination.

114 In so far as, by that argument, EUIPO seeks to call into question the impact of the distinctive elements of the signs at issue on the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion, it must be recalled that EUIPO does not dispute the Board of Appeal’s finding that, in the light of the applicable national law governing the earlier sign, the criteria for establishing a likelihood of confusion under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 can be applied, mutatis mutandis , to determine whether the earlier sign can justify prohibiting the use of the mark applied for under Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001 (see paragraph 18 above).

115 Thus, as EUIPO itself admits in its written pleadings, the principles developed under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 2017/1001 for the comparison of signs and the evaluation of the inherent distinctiveness of their common elements are applicable by analogy in the present case. In that regard, EUIPO recognises that – under the applicable national law governing the earlier sign – a likelihood of confusion appears if, inter alia, the sign applied for repeats or imitates a distinctive element of the earlier sign. It follows that, in the present case, the average distinctive character of the element ‘health’ – which is common to the signs at issue – has to be taken into account in the global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.

116 In those circumstances, the Board of Appeal erred in concluding in its global assessment that there was no likelihood of confusion between the signs at issue.

117 It follows that the first plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001, must be upheld.

118 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the contested decision must be annulled, without there being any need to examine the other pleas raised by the applicant.

Costs

119 Under Article 134(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party’s pleadings.

120 Since EUIPO and the interveners have been unsuccessful, they must be ordered to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicant, in accordance with the form of order sought by the applicant.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber)

hereby:

1. Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 14 July 2025 (Case R 2389/2024-2);

2. Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by Health Labs Care S.A.;

3. Orders Onebrand Trading Ltd S.K.A., Health Labs Express Ltd and Onebrand Trading LTD to bear their own costs and to pay one half of those incurred by Health Labs Care S.A.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 September 2026.

* Language of the case: English.